Matthew,
From a scientific viewpoint it naturally makes more sense to compare
the actual "window manager" portions of each system. But why would any
system administrator responsible for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of
corporate Linux desktops take the time to customize KDE so that it runs
faster and consumes fewer resources and doesn't provide too much rope
for the users to hang themselves with just to find that the next release
of KDE changes where all its config files are stored, the organization
of its modules, etc.? Why would the sysadmin change distributions to
Caldera (assuming most are not already using it) to get a decent
preconfigured KDE? IceWM is sitting there waiting to be used
effectively in its "out of the box" configuration on any distribution.
It has all settings in one configuration file. It allows for individual
configuration files *if needed* but doesn't force them on you. It does
provide "desktop manager" type features (toolbar, menu, hotkeys) without
actually allowing users to manage (alter) the desktop themselves. You
can always give them this ability with add-on utilities and personal
configuration files.
http://www.icewm.org/index.php?page=utilities
Don't get me wrong. Your point is absolutely correct. KWM and IceWM
are probably very comparable in their speed and their ability to put
decorations and controls on windows and to place them sensibly on the
screen. But no one runs just KWM. The point that myself and some
others are making is that the reality of the situation (what matters) is
what users and administrators actually do with the software. And in my
opinion, I would rather install a fast simple system that doesn't
overload my server and then add functionality as needed.
I don't think anyone is blaming KWM for KDE's bloat. They're just part
of the same package.
Jason
PS: XFce 3.8.14 is out <http://www.xfce.org/>.
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:48:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: mslicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Michael H. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well then if you can compare Windows Managers (WMs) to desktop systems
> then why not compare KDEwm to ICEwm?
>
> Let me tell you something, without the underlying desktop componant
> architecture (and applications that use it), you will use vastly more
> system resources as you add simultaneous users and applications.
>
> KDE and GNOME tend to be slow on most major distrobutions because the
> distrobutions are configuring them in a very heavy manner. The same
> number of things configured without a desktop system would be completely
> unthinkable in terms of performance. Try Caldera's 3.1 desktop to
> illustrate how fast KDE can be, if better refined. Red Hat, Mandrake, and
> SuSE stuff as much flashy garbage in their distrobutions as they can so
> they can make money on CD sales.....everyone upgrading to see all the new
> things.
>
> Caldera's focus is on business systems and is therefore the only refined
> distrobution I am aware of. They do not focus of stuffing as much on a CD
> as possible and quick upgrades for CD sales.. Unfortunately, their model
> isn't as profitable in the short run.
>
> Most impression is, probably a lot of you who are advocating ICEwm as a
> "replacement" for KDE or GNOME are actually using both desktop systems and
> not realizing it. You can get similar performance just by optimizing all
> the stuff that gets loaded with you default desktops. The KWM (KDE's
> default Window Manager) by itself is in fact very fast, I'd even think it
> might be faster than ICEwm.
>
> Or, try replacing KWM with ICEwm and then see if KDE runs any faster or
> slower?
>
> What I'm saying is, you are blaming the wrong thing for you desktop's slow
> performance. I gaurantee it.
>
> --Matthew
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
